It was not a bad film but some things were a bit grating. They kept making a big deal about how the titular character had trouble talking and the whole point of the film was about his efforts to overcome that problem. The point was also made that his brother, though inferior in every other way, was a superior speaker - but when either of them gives a speech, he sounds like a cartoon animal! Conversationally, George (who is called Albert) and Edward (who is called David) sound perfectly normal but when making speeches (presumably in order to sound like the historical figures) talk in high-pitched squeaky voices.

Also, it was just a speech. They acted like the whole country was hanging on it but it was nothing special, and certainly not remembered in history as any sort of major inspirational point in the war effort. They even show someone handing him the speech with the implication that it was written for him by a staff, and all he had to do was read the damn thing! All in all this makes his accomplishment nothing more than a personal triumph, and in the context of the greatest human tragedy and disaster in the history of the world, the personal sense of accomplishment and saitisfaction of one of the richest people, living the most comfortable lifestyle of anyone in the allied nations, is something of a "meh" hook. Considering the fates millions of Poles were shortly to be consigned to thanks to both the encouragement and betrayal of "his Majesty's" government, the fact that this overbred asshole who makes his friend keep behind him while out for a walk together is able to feel good about himself and overcome his childhood traumas is a matter of supreme indifference.

Another amusing aspect of the movie is the abdication controversy concerning George/Albert's brother, and the continued citation of religion as the impediment to his marriage to a divorcee. Ironically, the Church of England, a religion founded on divorce, "does not recognize divorce" and Mrs Simpson, the woman Edward is in love with, is therefore not eligible to be married to a king, who is head of that church. It is said at one point that divorced people cannot appear at the court once ruled over by Henry VIII. The hypocrisy is absolutely astounding, especially given the subsequent marital records of the hero's grandsons (why is everyone making such a big deal about the imminent marriage of yet another man from this family? History suggests no good end to it).

And speaking of that crisis, because of an apparently immutable, if unwritten, rule of drama that anything positive in the UK in the first half of the 20th century must reflect well on Winston Churchill. Churchill is shown disapproving of Edward/David's affair with Simpson and supportive of the York branch of the family, despite his actually having backed Edward and opposed the abdication even to a politically imprudent degree. The movie, obeying the aforementioned rule, places Churchill on the eventual winning side. While it is possible that he might have favored Albert/George privately and merely stuck by Edward publically out of the same romanticism and national/traditionalist chauvanism that spurred so many of his actions, what little I have heard of that episode suggests otherwise. Also, it would be kind of odd for him to oppose the union of a English scion of a distinguished lineage with an American skank, as he himself was spawned from one such pairing.

A similar point of oddity is a discussion between Churchill and the soon-to-be-king over what name he will reign under. I was not aware that English kings chose their names like the pope or something (is that a perk of being the Anglican equivalent? ), but the rationale given by Churchill is that "Albert" is too Germanic. Instead, they decide that he will call himself George, despite the first two kings of that name speaking German as their mother tongue. At least Albert brings no reminders of other unfortunate English monarchs, such as the insanity of the third George which is actually cited in the film, with the last one complaining that his stutter will make people compare them!

I also was pleasantly surprised by the appearance of actors from "Rome" in the film, but each of the two I saw had a single scene. Harry Potter veterans contributed three significant roles, by contrast. Though now I can say that Peter Pettigrew is not the most despicable or incompetant role played by Timothy Spall.